Trump to win?

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

the media inevitably develops these silly narratives

The article was written in October of 2015 and barely mentions Trump. It provides some interesting insights on how the alternative press, right and left, intersect with the mainstream media.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

...What do you think they did to that child after the story ends?

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

... Last night in Charlotte, North Carolina, the notoriously unrepentant Donald Trump shocked observers by expressing "regret" for words that "may have caused personal pain."

The entire quote: Sometimes, in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don’t choose the right words or you say the wrong thing. I have done that, and I regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain. Too much is at stake for us to be consumed with these issues.

Wow, after a year, Trump's handlers got him to offer a "sincere" apology.



Oops, not so much.

Trump's reply, "Well they have to take it as they see it" was not warm but showed good boundaries. We're responsible for our words but not for how others interpret our words. He took responsibility by saying he regretted speaking words that caused pain. It's up to the people who felt hurt by his words to decide if it was enough of an apology.

I think Trump is constitutionally incapable of being politically correct. With so many people feeling hurt and offended by so many things nowdays, he's always going to be offending someone. In this era of political correctness run amok, even if he accomplishes nothing else, I hope his candidacy puts an end to PC.

... it's not lying. It's doublethink.

It's knowing and then not knowing as a supreme act of human intellect and will. It's consciousness of complete truthfulness held while delivering exquisitely constructed lies. It's the mental capacity to hold simultaneously two opinions that cancel each other out, knowing them to be a contradiction yet still believing them both with absolutely certainty. It's the expert use of logic to defeat logic. It's laying claim to morality while at the same time repudiating it.

...

It's not mere lying like you and I might lie, to protect ourselves or gain advantage. No, it's the truth of forgetfulness empowered by infallible memory and a willful amnesia applied to the process of lying itself.

It's exquisite and perfect and requires a discipline and commitment no mere truth teller or factualist could possibly achieve. I'm not sure that it's possible to defeat. I think one can only recognize it and call attention to it, as one would a toxic plant or dangerous animal.

I understand what Woodsman is saying from a different paradigm. What Woodsman describes as doublethink is a type of dishonesty that is very real and common in co-dependent addictive systems. Our society is not healthy; it's a co-dependent, addictive society. Current governmental, political, economic, educational and medical systems are highly dysfunctional, like a beat-up old clock. The gears are missing teeth, twisted and bent but they still manage to work together and keep a semblance of time. What happens if you replace one of the bad gears with a shiny new gear? The clock won't run at all. Addicts and co-dependents thus fear change as death and resist it accordingly.

When people are powerless to stop abuse or escape it they often lie in order to survive. Sometimes they lie to themselves so well that they identify with their abuser and become abusers in turn. When people lie to themselves they invariably lie to other people who are also lying to themselves. Their lies become a habit and permanently skew their perception of reality. The choices they make and relationships they choose are all in support of their lies. Their bent perception of truth is a bent gear in a large, dysfunctional clock filled with other bent gears.

Psychopaths lie without conscience or remorse. They believe themselves above the law and immune to consequences. Personally, I think that Hillary Clinton is a psychopath but that's just my opinion, and opinions are not necessarily facts. I don't know if she believes her lies or not.

Then there are the lies told by addicts who will say and do anything keep their fix coming, whether they be addicted to substances, processes or intangibles such as fame, adulation and power. Their lies go hand-in-hand with the lies told by their co-dependent enablers. These are the kinds of lies that 1984 and Woodsman call doublespeak.

People trapped in dysfunctional systems rely on the following coping mechanisms (lies) to survive. Example: A child is beaten or witnesses her father beating her mother or mother beating a sibling:

Repression: I remember it happening but I don't want to think about it.

Suppression: I'll make myself forget it happened.

Minimization: It happened but it wasn't all that bad. He didn't actually break any bones.

Rationalization: It happened but I/she/he must have deserved it. He did it because he loves me.

Denial: It didn't happen. He didn't beat her, she fell and hurt herself because she's clumsy.

Dissociation: I can't bear it so I'll leave my body and watch from the ceiling, or split into different personalities to distance myself.

Trump is confronting our rotten-to-the-core co-dependent political system and threatening the rotten-to-the-core oligarchy that pays for it. He's not my ideal choice of person to do this and he's not doing it tactfully or gracefully, but he's doing it. What he's doing is dangerous. Remember the story of the emperor who had no clothes? When the child shouts, "The Emperor has no clothes!," everyone who praised the non-existent rainment is exposed as a liar or a fool. What do you think they did to that child after the story ends?

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

This explains a lot including why we should tax the hell out of billionaires.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/gr...-steve-bannon/

Mellivora capensis non assis.



Si mundus vult decipi, decipiatur.

In all the elections I've either followed as a spectator or engaged in as an operator, the media inevitably develops these silly narratives about this or that Republican insider as representative some deep and awful thing about the campaign and candidate. We remember the names - Ed Rollins the bare knuckle pugilist and Lee Atwater the bad boy of the GOP (whom the gods destroyed) immediately come to mind. And for the GOP side it's always the same story regardless of who are assigned the role:

"Gee, Bob. [GOP operative] has a reputation as a [fighter/hyper-aggressive/hard-charging/meanie/devious/mysterious]. What do you think that say's about the campaign?

"Well, Sam, I think it means we can look forward to really nasty campaign."

The template never changes for the Democratic operator and here the manager is usually portrayed as similarly aggressive but always guided by the light, always on the right side of history. The classic example must be D. A. Pennebaker's depiction of James Carville and George Stephanopoulos as the ying and yang of Democratic politics - the "ragin' cajun" and the "preppie tough guy - in his film, "The War Room."

In the end, it's the shopworn Manichean narrative the media foist on the public, with Democrats always representing perfect goodness and the GOP the embodiment of the world's evils. The low information folks love a good morality play and the media is happy to warm-up last night's dinner for them.

In this cycle, the villain role was initially assigned to Paul Manafort but it seemed no matter how much the Clinton media attempted to portray him as Trump's evil Svengali, they never could sell it. The public, conditioned to see Trump as a unitary leader, never paid much attention to his staff and Manafort always kept it low key. The short-lived attempt to smear him based on "secret handwritten ledgers" of dubious provenance "found" by a government whose very existence is due entirely to it's role in the New Cold War against Russia seems to me like a transparent effort to advance the Clinton line of Trump as a "Putin's agent." Once it became known that among the high-profile lobbyists registered to represent organizations backing deposed Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich included prominent Democratic lobbyists Anthony Podesta (whose brother John is "the man behind Hillary's campaign") and Republican lobbyists Vin "PNAC" Weber and Billy "PhRMA" Tauzin, the effort fell flat and the media moved on.

Now that Manafort is gone, the Clinton media have a new character in their quadrennial morality play in the person of Steve Bannon. Only Bannon seems unfazed by it all and might actually relish the prospect of being portrayed as Darth Vader to Trump's Emperor Palpatine. Whatever his impact on the Trump campaign, it's clear the DNC media machine and the Clinton camp are struggling to adapt to the turn of events and find themselves having to reorganize their plan.

Mr. Bloomberg's shop advances the "evil Bannon" narrative in this interview starting at 22:50, immediately following a free campaign ad for Hillary Clinton.

I think the departure of Manafort, he was first sidelined, and then gone—the initial read from inside Clinton world on the shakeup was, ‘Wow well, that’s confirming that things are in a giant mess over there,’ so they thought that was good. The departure of Manafort is a bit of a wildcard, right? He was a tempering influence, or at least he attempted to be, and they really don’t know what to expect now. Uncertainty is never a good thing.”

When asked about Bannon she said, “They felt they could draw some sort of box, as long as Manafort was in the picture. He would not let Trump do X, whatever X is, and those lines are basically not there anymore.”

She added, “They are not wrong to say from the beginning, that they expected there to be a bloodbath in September or October, into November, that it would be extremely nasty. And they would be ready for anything. I mean, from Monica Lewinsky to whatever. Hillary Clinton knows, in the process of running for office, all those things will come her way. I think what they didn’t plan for was the sort of complete, unpredictability and kind of, you know, it’s beyond the question of how do they respond. It’s a question of, they have absolutely no idea what they might be hit with on any day, and that throws people off their footing. I think there is definitely now a sense, within a lot of the close Clinton advisers, that, I mean, it’s just buckle up. They figure it’s going to be extraordinarily nasty and unpleasant on a day-to-day basis, and that she is ready for it.”

Curiously absent from the narrative is any focus on Clinton's campaign lead Robby Mook, whom among other accolades is described as the "the first openly gay manager of a major presidential campaign."



What does exist is typical of the media's "four legs good, two legs better" narrative, with Mook described as Hillary Clinton's Mafia don.

His campaigns are known for effectively defining the opposing politician—an essential strategy in today's political landscape, but one that can also have unintended consequences. In 2013, Time called he McAuliffe-Cuccinelli battle, " The Dirtiest, Nastiest, Low-Down Campaign In America," and while Mook's man won, the cost was high: McAuliffe has struggled to make political progress while in office, amid constant battles with an entrenched Republican legislature. "[McAuliffe] didn't have a mandate for having run on anything in their point of view besides 'Ken Cuccinelli sucks,' then they basically shut him down the first year," Benjamin Tribbett, a Virginia political blogger and strategist, told me. "It was like a dog trying to catch a squirrel. What was missing in that campaign was what happens once you catch the squirrel." Suggesting that the hype surrounding Mook may be overblown, Tribbett speculated that he may be good at putting himself on winning campaigns, and then claiming credit when demographics trend in his favor.

It's not hard to see a Mook-managed Clinton campaign playing out the same way. The 2016 presidential election will almost certainly get dirty and negative, but Mook's tactics could push things further in that direction. And in the event that Clinton is elected, a particularly savage campaign could make it next to impossible for her to get her agenda past congressional Republicans already predisposed to blocking her at every turn.

In November, ABC News revealed the existence of a listserv called the "Mook Mafia," a group of 150 or so Democratic campaign vets led by Mook and his buddy Marlon Marshall. The emails reported by ABC were relatively light blows—claims to "smite Republicans mafia-style" and "punish those voters"—but the attitude could raise larger issues as Mook gains a bigger national profile. Having a campaign managed by a man who openly compares himself to a mafia don might not be the best way for Clinton to distance herself from the perception that she is a political insider who sees her nomination as an inevitable coronation. And there's always the possibility that more damning emails or communications between the group have yet to be revealed—unflattering comments from Washington, DC, listservs have a way of revealing themselves at the most inopportune times.

My limited experience informs me that most senior political operatives are not the sort you'd want your son or daughter to marry. In American electoral politics, it is axiomatic that the most successful operatives are those with the least amount of scruples in advancing their candidate's (and their own) interests. While the three-reel morality play inevitably portrays the Democrat as good and Republican as evil, they all seem to come out of the nastiest side of the pond.

It's a job requirement, really, and nice guys should retire to the beach and get a dog.

In the end, it's the candidate who wins or loses an election, with lead staff always winning, either rewarded with plum administration posts or left to cash in via tell-all books or lucrative consulting contracts. It remains to be seen what Bannon's impact will be in terms of Trump's prospects in the final dash to election day. Clearly he has the Clinton camp and her media assets running scared.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

These behaviors may ultimately elect Trump:

http://theamericanmirror.com/video-a...dees-gauntlet/

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

As an original thinker "Brit" looking on, these last few pages of debate have been deeply enlightening as a wonderful illustration of the reality of the human mind. My 72 years have brought me to the conclusion that in every human mind there are two realities; two quite different people; one is the conscious mind always visible to ourselves and the world that surrounds us; the other being our unconscious mind, that serves to drive us from within. To that end, I am a classic "driven" person, with an inner mind that will hit out at me in quite alarming ways; when it does not like the direction my outer self has taken, (or is about to), take.

What is so great about your debates herein is they show how that inner mind can shout out through such debate; the inner thoughts so often never revealed. We see the truth of the two minds; the inner debate combined with the outer reality.

The human race has greatly prospered over the centuries by that combination of selfs; inner and outer. There is nothing wrong with revealing such, to ourselves or to the others surrounding us in such a debate.

Nothing to see here other than just a few humans having a great debate about a future election. Neither side is right or wrong; both sides are showing us their humanity. Enjoy!

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

This explains a lot including why we should tax the hell out of billionaires.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/gr...-steve-bannon/

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

i give up. i will no longer attempt to discuss these things with you. it appears that that is your wish and if so, i wish you'd said it clearly, earlier. but nonetheless, so be it.

To discuss things, we must agree that a thing is a thing and not nothing. You and Santa can't seem to do that in this domain, and so I find I'm talking to myself. And doctor, that's just crazy.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

It is whatever you say it is, until you say it isn't. And then it never was, until you require it to be again.

i give up. i will no longer attempt to discuss these things with you. it appears that that is your wish and if so, i wish you'd said it clearly, earlier. but nonetheless, so be it.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

you'll have to explain this to me. i can't even tell if you're referring to yourself, to me, or someone else, or if you mean "mad" as a play on words, especially since it's a reply to a post about your anger. it sounds like a quote but i don't recognize it. ahhh, 1984 again google informs me. there is indeed truth and untruth, but in complicated matters it might not be so simple, or even it's simple it might not be clear.

most of what we write here, however, is neither truth nor untruth. it is opinion. it is prediction. it is hope and it is fear.

shouldn't you reconsider the picture at the bottom of your signature? or are we to understand that it is no longer ironic?

It is whatever you say it is, until you say it isn't. And then it never was, until you require it to be again.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

i apologize for characterizing your stance on "law and order" as paternalism. it was an unnecessary dig. but i stand by the idea that those who live with the consequences should get the choice, and they seem to feel pretty strongly.

Being in a minority, even in a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.

you'll have to explain this to me. i can't even tell if you're referring to yourself, to me, or someone else, or if you mean "mad" as a play on words, especially since it's a reply to a post about your anger. it sounds like a quote but i don't recognize it.

ahhh, 1984 again google informs me. there is indeed truth and untruth, but in complicated matters it might not be so simple, or even if it's simple it might not be clear.

most of what we write here, however, is neither truth nor untruth. it is opinion. it is prediction. it is hope and it is fear.

shouldn't you reconsider the picture at the bottom of your signature? or are we to understand that it is no longer ironic?

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Must be a habit:

http://nypost.com/2016/08/19/powell-...te-email-book/

Stop. You're not getting it. Read over the last dozen or so posts among Woodsman and the situational twins, JK and Santa and understand, it's not lying. It's doublethink.

It's knowing and then not knowing as a supreme act of human intellect and will. It's consciousness of complete truthfulness held while delivering exquisitely constructed lies. It's the mental capacity to hold simultaneously two opinions that cancel each other out, knowing them to be a contradiction yet still believing them both with absolutely certainty. It's the expert use of logic to defeat logic. It's laying claim to morality while at the same time repudiating it.

It's not mere lying like you and I might lie, to protect ourselves or gain advantage. No, it's the truth of forgetfulness empowered by infallible memory and a willful amnesia applied to the process of lying itself.

It's exquisite and perfect and requires a discipline and commitment no mere truth teller or factualist could possibly achieve. I'm not sure that it's possible to defeat. I think one can only recognize it and call attention to it, as one would a toxic plant or dangerous animal.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

if they are the ones [mostly] to live with the consequences, i say let them choose.

to say you know better, absent a crystal ball, is imo disrespectful paternalism.

i apologize for characterizing your stance as paternalism. it was an unnecessary dig. but i stand by the idea that those who live with the consequences should get the choice, and they seem to feel pretty strongly.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Must be a habit:

http://nypost.com/2016/08/19/powell-...te-email-book/

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

too bitter for me. from hot anger to cold anger. my hope was we could get past the anger but i guess not.

Being in a minority, even in a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.